by morell » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:30 pm
by Q. » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:38 pm
Yes. I was a bit harsh considering not having the numbers, but would like to see them commit to overturning ban going into election.Jimmy_041 wrote:Q. wrote:Within farming community there is resentment that they were flaccid when the opportunity to end moratorium on GM crops came up.Dogwatcher wrote:I understand that the concern around some Lib country seats is very real. Not just a media beat-up.
Flaccid? I'd call Ridgway anything but flaccid, plus there's not a lot you can do when you dont have the numbers
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-11-16/south-australia-gm-ban-extension-to-2025/9155994
Doesn't this just sum up Weatherill:"The truth is there are not a lot of votes out there in country South Australia for us, so in some ways we are free of the electoral imperatives about this," Mr Weatherill told the ABC's Landline program back in July.
In other words: we'll stick it up the farmers for not voting for us
by Q. » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:42 pm
He's taking an anti-science stance, which is disappointing.morell wrote:Rubbish. He's being honest by representing the people that voted for him and what he feels is the right thing to do.
Wish more politicians would take that sort of stand, actually, otherwise there's no point in even having policies or elections.
Like it, or not, he's being consistent and you know what you're voting for (or against):Jay Weatherill is a strong and vocal supporter of the GM ban, and earlier in the year said he would not be pressured by the grains industry to scrap the ban.
by Dogwatcher » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:48 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Trader wrote:morell wrote:Rubbish. He's being honest by representing the people that voted for him and what he feels is the right thing to do.
So do you think a member of parliament should only represent those that voted for him/her to get in? Or once in, they should represent everyone in their electorate?
I believe a strong leader will do the latter, while a weaker person will fall for the former in an effort to seek re-election, rather than doing "what's right".
I'm sure Morrell doesn't think that. But if you don't think that's how politics works, you're very naive.
You're talking a perfect-world scenario.
by morell » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:53 pm
Q. wrote:He's taking an anti-science stance, which is disappointing.morell wrote:Rubbish. He's being honest by representing the people that voted for him and what he feels is the right thing to do.
Wish more politicians would take that sort of stand, actually, otherwise there's no point in even having policies or elections.
Like it, or not, he's being consistent and you know what you're voting for (or against):Jay Weatherill is a strong and vocal supporter of the GM ban, and earlier in the year said he would not be pressured by the grains industry to scrap the ban.
by morell » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:56 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:Trader wrote:morell wrote:Rubbish. He's being honest by representing the people that voted for him and what he feels is the right thing to do.
So do you think a member of parliament should only represent those that voted for him/her to get in? Or once in, they should represent everyone in their electorate?
I believe a strong leader will do the latter, while a weaker person will fall for the former in an effort to seek re-election, rather than doing "what's right".
I'm sure Morrell doesn't think that. But if you don't think that's how politics works, you're very naive.
You're talking a perfect-world scenario.
Well, seems he is saying that.
The rest of my point stands, though.
by Q. » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:01 pm
Patents have existed on non-GM crops for a long time.morell wrote:Q. wrote:He's taking an anti-science stance, which is disappointing.morell wrote:Rubbish. He's being honest by representing the people that voted for him and what he feels is the right thing to do.
Wish more politicians would take that sort of stand, actually, otherwise there's no point in even having policies or elections.
Like it, or not, he's being consistent and you know what you're voting for (or against):Jay Weatherill is a strong and vocal supporter of the GM ban, and earlier in the year said he would not be pressured by the grains industry to scrap the ban.
I don't have a strong opinion on the actual policy - other than I have issues with the commodification aspect, as per Greens policy, living organisms are not inventions. Patents on life are unethical and against the public interest, but am critical of the attacks on him for sticking to aforementioned policy, which he has been nothing but upfront and clear about.
by morell » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:07 pm
by Q. » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:19 pm
You currently wouldn't have to pay end point royalties for domestic produce.morell wrote:The worry I have is if one day Steggles create uber-Eggs and if you have chooks at home, those eggs violate some kind of patent law. An extreme example, but there are some concerns in that space. I also understand that without GMOs half the world would probably starve.
As I said I don't have a strong opinion on it and would absolutely cede to the more informed. I'm a GMO centrist.
by Jimmy_041 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:21 am
morell wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:morell wrote:Rubbish. He's being honest by representing the people that voted for him and what he feels is the right thing to do.
Wish more politicians would take that sort of stand, actually, otherwise there's no point in even having policies or elections.
Like it, or not, he's being consistent and you know what you're voting for (or against):Jay Weatherill is a strong and vocal supporter of the GM ban, and earlier in the year said he would not be pressured by the grains industry to scrap the ban.
Yeah, nothing to see here: "The truth is there are not a lot of votes out there in country South Australia for us, so in some ways we are free of the electoral imperatives about this,"
In other words: "I would have changed if it meant critical votes"
No, you're projecting your myopic view of the world onto what he is saying. Your AdelAIDS is clouding your judgement.
He absolutely should not follow the electoral prerogatives of people that didn't vote for him, because to do so, would mean he would be against the people that did! He is standing up for his electoral promises. If he didn't, you'd be the first one to say "See! He's a flip flopper politician with no backbone"
by Jimmy_041 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:23 am
morell wrote:I wonder if you two apply the same rules to Turnbull and negative gearing? Hmmmmmm?
He isn't representing young people and by not changing it he is just shoving it in their face for not voting for him
He should represent everyone, not just the people that voted for him
He is a weak leader for not being able to change his mind
Right?
by morell » Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:55 am
by MW » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:01 am
by Booney » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:11 am
MW wrote:Listened to Nick X on 5AA this morning...he is dead set panicking on the thought of himself becoming Premier.
by MW » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:17 am
by Booney » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:24 am
by morell » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:33 am
I actually think there needs to be more regulation around this.MW wrote:Listening to him scramble for policy was not too different to that door stop of Billy Brownless the footy show keep bringing up. Had no idea.
by heater31 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:34 am
Something is going to have to give to force change.Booney wrote:He's a clown. His party tricks are nothing more than that and if people see SA Best as a viable alternative we're screwed.
But, he'll work a Trump like campaign to mobilize those who are despondent about the ALP's performance in many areas and suspicious of the Libs factional infighting being one fat bastard dinner away from knifing Marshall.
by morell » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:38 am
by The Bedge » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:45 am
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |